Defending the Realm

Do you reckon I ought to remove Portugal joining the war, then?

Not necessarily, but you have to sweeten the deal, a lot. Our primary fear was of spanish invasion*, so unless that goes away, it's not going to be easy. Money, diplomatic help, etc, won't chaneg this. The best way to prevend the problem would be to put british troops in Portugal, while making it clear to Spain, via diplomatic channels, that they would only be used for defense, so Franco better not get any funny ideas. And this would have to be done in the first few days after the declaration, to prevent any german moves.





*not totally baseless. Fun fact: one of Franco's essays in the academy was on an invasion of Lisboa...
 
Not necessarily, but you have to sweeten the deal, a lot. Our primary fear was of spanish invasion*, so unless that goes away, it's not going to be easy. Money, diplomatic help, etc, won't chaneg this. The best way to prevend the problem would be to put british troops in Portugal, while making it clear to Spain, via diplomatic channels, that they would only be used for defense, so Franco better not get any funny ideas. And this would have to be done in the first few days after the declaration, to prevent any german moves.

What about the Old Anglo-Portuguese Alliance, it's still in effect today and would have been in effect back then as well, given that do you think that if we asked for it or if Portugal was attacked (I have no doubt on that) they would join us. Nationalism is a very large point of Fascism and I suspect any treaty running that long would be something that Nationalism would take as an that's our treaty and we will protect it sort of thing, in fact it's one of the reasons that I favour Portugal as a state to visit than any other besides Canada, Australia and New Zealand, though that's just me as a person from England, who may be a little over the top on Patriotism.

also:
It is cordially agreed that if, in time to come, one of the kings or his heir shall need the support of the other, or his help, and in order to get such assistance applies to his ally in lawful manner, the ally shall be bound to give aid and succour to the other, so far as he is able (without any deceit, fraud, or pretence) to the extent required by the danger to his ally’s realms, lands, domains, and subjects; and he shall be firmly bound by these present alliances to do this.

  • Upon the declaration of war in September 1939, the Portuguese Government announced on 1 September that the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance remained intact, but since the British did not seek Portuguese assistance, Portugal would remain neutral. In an aide-mémoire of 5 September 1939, the British Government confirmed the understanding. British strategists regarded Portuguese non-belligerency as "essential to keep Spain from entering the war on the side of the Axis."
During the Second World War, Salazar steered Portugal down a middle path, but nevertheless provided aid to the Allies. The British Ambassador in Lisbon, Ronald Campbell, saw Salazar as fundamentally loyal to the Alliance and stated that "he [Salazar] would answer the call if it were made on grounds of dire necessity". When, in August 1943, the British requested base facilities in the Azores and invoked the alliance that had existed for over 600 years between Portugal and Great Britain,[8] Salazar responded favorably and virtually at once:[9] Portugal granted naval bases on Portuguese territory to Britain, in keeping with the traditional Anglo-Portuguese Alliance, letting them use the Azorean ports of Horta (on the island of Faial) and Ponta Delgada (on the island of São Miguel), and the airfields of Lajes Field (on Terceira Island) and Santana Field (on São Miguel Island).

  • In November 1943, the British Ambassador in Lisbon, Sir Ronald Campbell, wrote (paraphrasing Salazar) that "strict neutrality was the price the allies paid for strategic benefits accruing from Portugal's neutrality and that if her neutrality instead of being strict had been more benevolent in our favour Spain would inevitably have thrown herself body and soul into the arms of Germany. If this had happened the Peninsula would have been occupied and then North Africa, with the result that the whole course of the war would have been altered to the advantage of the Axis."
In World War II, Prime Minister António de Oliveira Salazar was committed to the six-century-old treaty (which had been renewed in 1899). Portugal provided assistance not by declaring war but by helping Spain stay neutral and by assuming a co-belligerent status against Germany by leasing air bases in the Azores to the Allies in 1943. It cut off vital shipments of tungsten to Germany in 1944, after heavy Allied pressure. Lisbon was the base for International Red Cross operations aiding Allied POWs, and a main air transit point between Britain and the U.S.
 
Last edited:
It is cordially agreed that if, in time to come, one of the kings or his heir shall need the support of the other, or his help, and in order to get such assistance applies to his ally in lawful manner, the ally shall be bound to give aid and succour to the other, so far as he is able (without any deceit, fraud, or pretence) to the extent required by the danger to his ally’s realms, lands, domains, and subjects; and he shall be firmly bound by these present alliances to do this.

Hmm, since Portugal is now a republic, that clause seems to be technically invalid, though of course now both countries are in NATO.
 
Hmm, since Portugal is now a republic, that clause seems to be technically invalid, though of course now both countries are in NATO.
I've written Addendums and continue to do so, also the Treaty is still upheld by the Portuguese republic and was upheld by Salazar, I'm adding more bits to the post to be continued, also the Alliance has undergone additions over the years
 
Based on the advice I have received, I have decided to remove the Portuguese entry into the war.

You might wish to consult with our Spanish/Portuguese experts, but from what has been said, the Portuguese concern about entering on the Allied side has been that of Spain. The thought that crossed my mind - and I emphasise that I'm not familiar with the situation, and am just going on what has been said here - was that if the concern over Spain was removed, then Portugal might be more inclined to make the leap.

There are several ways of removing the Spanish threat. The least likely is the military option. There's just no percentage in the British throwing resources into defeating Spain. It would be hard, would lead to Bad Things, and would overall be as stupid a move as invading Sw itzerland. But Spain is recovering from an inconvenient Civil War, and has shortages of pretty much everything. Bribing Spain with grain and iron and oil might shift the pro-Axis stance of Spain's neutrality somewhat. Add that to Spanish fears following Germany's unwise actions against Switzerland, and Spain could be persuaded to shift to a pro-British neutral.

If we assume, as seems likely under the situation, that Britain has access to the Irish Treaty Ports, the Battle of the Atlantic is going to swing somewhat in Britain's favour. Add in to the mix increased troubles in France (the greater success of Britain is likely to knock on to greater regard for the Free French).

I don't know, random thoughts.
 
What about the Old Anglo-Portuguese Alliance, it's still in effect today and would have been in effect back then as well, given that do you think that if we asked for it or if Portugal was attacked (I have no doubt on that) they would join us.

Yeah... that aliance is not a blank check. And it certainly didn't stop the UK from forcing us out of parts of Africa in 1890, pretty much at gun point. So much for that. And I didn't mention "defeating Spain", but puting UK troops in Portugal, making it clear that they are here just for defensive purposes. Certainly offering a "carrot" to counter this "stick" would be a good idea. The simple fact is, even in this timeline, openly going for the allies in such a manner and so early in the game is too risky, for a country with almost no armed forces, zero modern equipment, and a bordeline hostile, very large neighbour next to us, who has always waited for a chance to gobble us up and is a friend of the other side...
 
So the Germans threw away the significant advantage of a neutral Switzerland for a 'morale booster'? There were far easier targets to be had in the fall of 1941 which would have played to the German and other allies forces strengths such as attacking Sweden-or even Spain.
hmm not sure attacking Sweden would have been too clever either, and Spain well that worked well for Napoleon, so what could go wrong?.
 

nbcman

Donor
hmm not sure attacking Sweden would have been too clever either, and Spain well that worked well for Napoleon, so what could go wrong?.
I agree that attacking any minor country as a morale booster would not be clever idea. At least attacking those two countries would give Germany access to those country's resources. Switzerland doesn't have many resources to offer for the cost of occupying that country and damaging relations with other larger neutral nations which were German trading partners such as Sweden, Spain and Turkey.
 
Chapter Eight: British Technology
Thanks to @Some Bloke for providing me with the ideas for the Griffon engine and the Burney Gun.

***
It is at this point, at the dawn of 1942, that it is appropriate to observe the development of British technology during the war, for numerous major strides were made by British engineers which ultimately had a significant impact on the outcome of the war.

After the Allied victory in the Battle of Britain, emphasis in Britain began to shift from constructing existing models (which was considered the norm in order to have an air force, navy, and weaponry sufficient to fend off an invading army), to developing new weapons and technology to provide the Allies with a new edge over Axis forces.

One of the first technological advancements made during 1941 was the Griffon engine for the new variant of Supermarine Spitfires. The Griffon engine, developed by Rolls-Royce, had first been tested in November 1939, and throughout 1940 and early 1941, British engineers worked on adapting the new engine to a new Spitfire variant. The work, largely overseen by aircraft designer Joseph Smith, came to an end on July the 18th 1941, when the new Spitfire had its first flight – the Griffon-engine powered Spitfires would subsequently be introduced into the RAF in June 1942, and proved to be extremely valuable, with the Griffon-engine proving to be capable of improving the Spitfire’s performance significantly.

Another area of technological improvement made by British engineers came in the field of anti-tank weaponry. During the first years of the war, work had been underway in Britain for the development of a new anti-tank gun, known as the 3.45 inch RCL – or, Burney Gun as it was commonly known [1]. The Burney Gun, named after its designer, Sir Dennis Burney, was developed by the Broadway Trust Company, and was developed as a recoilless weapon which had a range of 1000 yards. Initially, however, the development of the Burney Gun encountered several problems, which led to the project coming close to being scrapped, yet an unusual event occurred which saved the Burney Gun and ensured it would enter production – the Battle of Crete. When German paratroopers landed on the island, they were easily repulsed by the British and Greek defenders (German parachute regiments were yet to recover from the Battle of Britain), which gave the Allies control over multiple German equipment which had been taken with the paratroopers to the island. Amongst the equipment secured by the Allies was the 7.5cm Leichtgeschütz 40, a recoilless gun which bore numerous similarities to the Burney Gun.

As a result of this, several Leichtgeschütz 40s were transported back to Britain and given to the Broadway Trust Company, which began reverse engineering several so as to improve the Burney Gun. Eventually, modifications were made to the Burney Gun based on the German model, including the adoption of a lighter, and more effective, 75mm shell, which enabled the Burney Gun to be transported with relative ease by soldiers using it. Having refined his new weapon so as to make it more effective and efficient, Burney had his new Gun mass-produced, and by 1942, British soldiers on the frontline were using the Burney Gun against enemy tanks, and, overall, the weapon proved to be quite effective.

Yet the most significant technological development worked on in Britain during the war was also, by far, the most difficult to develop – a weapon which utilised uranium fission, or, as it was also known, an ‘super bomb’ [2]. The origin of the British programme to create a nuclear weapon came in March 1940, when Rudolf Periels and Otto Frisch, at the time working for notable physicist Mark Oliphant at the University of Birmingham, issued what has since been called the Frisch-Periels Memorandum. In the Memorandum, the two scientists provided numerous calculations which demonstrated the feasibility nuclear weapon, and at the end of the memorandum, they urged Britain to develop a nuclear weapon before Germany, as it would ultimately be crucial to the outcome of the war (as it happened, Britain needn’t have worried about the German nuclear programme, as it was actually in a state of disarray). The memorandum the two scientists issued was read by Churchill, who decided to respond to it by establishing the MAUD Committee in June 1940, which would investigate whether or not Frisch and Periels’ calculations were in fact, and whether or not a super bomb was possible. Just over a year later, on July the 15th 1941, the MAUD Committee issued two reports, which confirmed that the Frisch-Periels Memorandum was indeed correct, and a super bomb was indeed feasible. Having received concrete confirmation of the super bomb’s feasibility, Churchill ordered that a British nuclear programme be established, headed by Wallace Akers, which took the name ‘Tube Alloys’, to mislead spies.

Initially, work on Tube Alloys was conducted within Britain, and the scientists inside the programme focused on numerous issues which blocked the development of the super bomb. Yet, by early 1942, it was evident that continuing to station Tube Alloys in the British Isles was a risk-filled move, as there was a possibility that German spies would be able to discover the programme, or that, if a super bomb was created and tested, German radars would be able to detect it, and would therefore be alerted of Britain’s progress with its nuclear programme. Therefore, Churchill and the Government decided in August 1942 to re-locate Tube Alloys to Canada – not only would this prevent the Nazis from learning of the nuclear programme, yet it also held several other advantages. For example, the vast, uninhabited wilderness in Northern Canada was an ideal location for the testing of a super bomb, if the programme successfully developed one, while re-locating to Canada also ensured that British nuclear co-operation with the United States could expand. Ever since the Tizard Mission in August 1940, information sharing between the Tube Alloys programme and the American nuclear programme, the S-1 Executive Committee, had increased until, after Tube Alloy’s re-location to Canada, US President Franklin D Roosevelt agreed to fold the S-1 Executive Committee into Tube Alloys and so, from 1942 onwards, British, Canadian and American scientists worked jointly within the Tube Alloys programme. This, combined with the Lend-Lease Agreement (whereby the US agreed to provide supplies to Britain), and the Atlantic Charter (a policy agreement signed between Churchill and Roosevelt on their respective countries' attitudes towards the war), was one of the many areas of the increasing informal alliance between Britain and America which was emerging as the war continued.

***​

[1] See the Wikipedia article on the weapon here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance,_RCL,_3.45_in

[2] This was the name given to a nuclear weapon in the Frisch-Periels Memorandum.
 
Last edited:
Maybe ITTL Burney Gun or just Burney is used in the Army to refer to any kind of portable rocket launcher.
Hoover = Vaccum cleaner
Burney = Rocket launcher.
 
Maybe ITTL Burney Gun or just Burney is used in the Army to refer to any kind of portable rocket launcher.
Hoover = Vaccum cleaner
Burney = Rocket launcher.
Perhaps it would - once the Burney Gun becomes used on a wide-scale by the British Army ITTL, it would certainly become effective enough to be synonymous with a rocket launcher.
 
Great call on that gun, never heard of it! :hushedface:

Does the UK even have the resources to develop & build an atom bomb, even in this timeline? Don't forget, you need a bomber as well, and even the Lancaster isn't big enough...

Something just hit me: at this rate, we'll have the Mustang fitted with a Griffon engine!! Gods, that will be amazing! :love::love:

Regarding a possible threat to Sweden, does anyone know the condition of it's navy at this time? I know the army & airforce were weak(ish) but have no clue on the navy.
 
Something just hit me: at this rate, we'll have the Mustang fitted with a Griffon engine!! Gods, that will be amazing! :love::love:

Once it's been optimised for high altitude performance, sure. Although with Britain being in a better place economically, politically and militarily,
we could be lookin at a straight engine for airframe swap on licences, meaning that Britain could be building its own Mustangs.
 
Does the UK even have the resources to develop & build an atom bomb, even in this timeline?
1200px-Uranium_Reserves.png

Judging by this map, there are significant uranium deposits in Australia, Canada, South Africa, and India, so the natural resources necessary for an atomic bomb shouldn't be a problem for Britain - but we'll have to see whether or not the Tube Alloys programme can crack the key to building a bomb first.

Great call on that gun, never heard of it!
It was largely Some Bloke's idea for the Burney Gun to be introduced, and it will prove to be a game changer as the war progresses.

Something just hit me: at this rate, we'll have the Mustang fitted with a Griffon engine!! Gods, that will be amazing
I have several ideas for the automobile industry (British car manufacturing in particular) - yet first we must see how the war will turn out.
 
I agree that attacking any minor country as a morale booster would not be clever idea. At least attacking those two countries would give Germany access to those country's resources. Switzerland doesn't have many resources to offer for the cost of occupying that country and damaging relations with other larger neutral nations which were German trading partners such as Sweden, Spain and Turkey.
Sweden is not all that minor and neither is Spain, that's the problem
 
Judging by this map, there are significant uranium deposits in Australia, Canada, South Africa, and India, so the natural resources necessary for an atomic bomb shouldn't be a problem for Britain - but we'll have to see whether or not the Tube Alloys programme can crack the key to building a bomb first.

To clarify: I wasn't refering to uranium, or even basic technologies. I'm refering to the massive industrial efort required. It took the giant US industry (and funds...) 4-5 years to build it, not to mention what it took to get the B-29...
 
Chapter Nine: The Liberation of French Africa
Following the Battle of Dakar in 1940 and the British victory in the Western Desert Campaign in 1941, de Gaulle and the Free French began to persistently request that Churchill and the British Government organise landings along the coast of Algeria, so as to ensure that the rest of French West Africa would fall under Allied control. Initially, however, Churchill and Alan Brooke, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, were reluctant to organise any amphibious landings in North Africa, as, although the Royal Navy was easily the dominant naval force and there was little threat from either the Kriegsmarine nor the Regia Marina, there was an issue of prior lack of experience of the British, Commonwealth and Free French forces in amphibious landings – and the German failure in Sealion had shown the dangers of such inexperience. So, it February 1942, it was resolved by the British Government to instead organise landings on the island of Madagascar, in order to drive off the Vichy French forces on the island and to gauge how Allied soldiers would fare in such a landing. Such a decision was opposed by de Gaulle, who continued to advocate for an immediate landing in Algeria, yet was supported by British and Commonwealth generals. It was agreed that a British division, under the command of Robert Sturges, would land on the island, supported by a brigade of Free French troops under the command of Henri of Orléans.

The Battle of Madagascar, as it came to be known, began on April the 7th, as Allied forces landed along the beaches of far north Madagascar, near the city of Diego-Suarez, which was an important strategic site, both for the Vichy French to defend and for the Allies to capture. The British division and Free French brigade proceeded to advance towards the city, and captured it two days after landing. From Diego-Suarez, the Allies began to advance southwards, and throughout the campaign held a strong numerical advantage – the number of British troops present was roughly 15,000, while the number of Free French troops present was roughly 2000, giving the Allies a combined force of 17,000 men. By comparison, the Vichy French garrison on the island was only 8000 strong, with a limited amount of equipment and supplies. Consequently, by June the 8th, Vichy French forces were given the order to evacuate their remaining holdouts on the southern portion of the island, and so the Battle of Madagascar came to an end in an Allied victory.

Having witnessed British and Free French troops successfully stage an amphibious landing, Churchill and Brooke now had the confirmation they needed that landings in North Africa could indeed take place – much to the delight of de Gaulle. Preparations for said landings, code-named Operation Battleaxe, took place between mid-May and late-July, and by September, it was agreed that plans for Battleaxe had been refined and were ready to be put into action. The operation called for three landings along Vichy French Algeria and Morocco – a Western Task Force, consisting of two Free French divisions, would land in Morocco, a Centre Task Force, consisting of two British divisions, would land near Oran, and finally an Eastern Task Force, consisting of a further two British divisions would land near Algiers [1]. The date of Battleaxe’s landings was scheduled for August the 20th 1942, and so the necessary forces were assembled.

However, before Battleaxe was launched, it was agreed by the British High Command that it would be beneficial for Vichy troops to be drawn away from the North African coast when the landings took place, and so it was agreed that, five days prior to Battleaxe, British forces from Libya under the command of Montgomery, who had been promoted to the position of Field Marshal since the conclusion of the Western Desert Campaign, would push into Tunisia. On the 10th, the Tunisian Campaign began, as Montgomery and his recently formed 10th Army (consisting of several of the corps which had took part in Operation Hammerhead) launched a surprise attack into Tunisia, with the intention of capturing the coastal city of Zarzis. The Battle of Zarzis lasted from the 10th to the 12th, and eventually resulted in the Vichy French and Italian forces [1] defending the city retreating to the Mareth Line – a series of defensive fortifications designed to prevent an invasion of Tunisia.

This led to the Battle of Mareth, which lasted from the 13th to the 19th. Initially, attempts by the 10th Army to break the line and force the Vichy French and Italians to retreat were repulsed, and thus a stalemate ensued. However, as Battleaxe began and many Vichy forces were re-directed to Algeria and Morocco, Montgomery and the British were able to successfully penetrate the Axis defences and, on the 19th, the Mareth Line collapsed. This forced the Vichy French and Italians to retreat further into Tunisia, having lost their key defensive position, while Montgomery and the 10th Army entered the nearby the city of Gabés.

From Gabés, Montgomery intended to push further north towards the major city of Sfax, where the bulk of Axis resistance in Tunisia was now concentrated following the collapse of the Mareth Line. Between the 20th and the 22nd, British forces advanced towards Sfax, encountering little resistance aside from a few Vichy French companies which had not retreated as far following the collapse of the Mareth Line. On the 22nd, the Battle of Sfax began, as Montgomery and the 10th Army began to assault the city, while the Vichy French and Italian defenders, consisting of three divisions, attempted to repulse the British attacks. By the 27th, however, resistance around Sfax had collapsed in the face of the 10th Army’s numerical and technological superiority, and so the Vichy French and Italians one again retreated, while Montgomery and the 10th Army entered the city triumphant.

It is at this point that an overview of the events of Battleaxe can be described.

On the 20th, Battleaxe began, as Royal Navy ships transported the divisions to their necessary targets – as previously mentioned, the Royal Navy easily held naval superiority, and so no interruptions came during the travel towards French North Africa. Once the fleets reached their separate targets, the landings began. As the separate Task Forces landed, they encountered varying degrees of resistance from the Vichy French garrisons holding the colonies – the Western Task Force and the Centre Task Forces encountered less resistance than the Eastern Task Force, which was attempting to capture Algiers, the capital of Vichy French Algeria and therefore the centre of Vichy French resistance. By the 21st, British forces in the Centre Task Force had been able to secure control of Oran, while the Free French Western Task Force secured Casablanca on the same day and Safi the following day. On the 22nd, fighting came to a close near Algiers, as the British Eastern Task Force was eventually able to advance, and the Vichy French, suffering from low morale and a shortage of equipment, surrendered, allowing British Field Marshal Harold Alexander [2], who held the overall command of the Allied forces performing Battleaxe, to enter Algiers and accept the surrender of the Vichy French Governor. And so, multiple strategic cities on the North African coast had been secured by the Allies – yet Battleaxe was not at an end yet.

When news of the Allied landings reached the European Continent, the Vichy regime knew that its days were numbered – on the 22nd, the German forces in occupied France, on the orders of the Nazi Government, which now believed that Vichy France was nothing more than a dead weight after its failure to defend North Africa, initiated an invasion of Vichy France, codenamed Case Anton. The invasion was swift, yet, before the Germans could fully conquer the Vichy state, Pétain’s Government ordered the scuttling of the French fleet at Toulon, preventing the Germans from securing it. In the months following Anton, Hitler and the Nazi Government proceeded to re-organise France and the Low Countries now that it was completely German-controlled – this included the establishment of two new Nazi puppet states, the SS State of Burgundy (consisting of French-speaking Switzerland, eastern France, and Belgium) (which was directly controlled by Heinrich Himmler), the SS State of Brittany (consisting of the French province of Brittany), while the rest of France continued as a German-occupied zone.

News of the initiation of Anton reached the Vichy French forces in North Africa on the 24th. At this point, the British and Free French forces had pushed forward from their initial landing points and were advancing with significant pace – by the 26th, the entirety of the Algerian and Moroccan coast was controlled by the Allies. At this point, Vichy morale was extremely low, while many French forces still loyal to the Vichy regime were now uncomfortable with the fact that they now served the Third Reich, rather than a French Government. As a result of this, defections began en masse to the Allies from not only the beleaguered Vichy soldiers but also the governors of the remaining Vichy French colonies. As a result of this, by the 31st, the entirety of French West Africa was under Allied control – including the remaining portions of Tunisia, in which the local Vichy governor, Jean-Pierre Esteva, had defected on the 28th, allowing Montgomery and the 10th Army to easily finish off any remaining Italian troops in the colony.

The conclusion of Battleaxe brought an end to the Liberation of French Africa in an Allied victory. Shortly after the campaign came to an end, de Gaulle and the Free French Government moved their headquarters from Dakar, where it had been based since 1940, to Algiers, while Free French ranks swelled with recruits from the former Vichy armies in West Africa. Meanwhile, British troops had gained significant experience in amphibious landings, and so the British Government began preparing the Empire and Commonwealth’s next move in its fight against Nazi Germany.

***​

[1] Like in our timeline, many Italian troops retreated to Tunisia after the end of the Western Desert Campaign.

[2] As a minor side-note, in this timeline, Harold Alexander is granted the title Earl of Algiers, rather than Earl of Tunis.
 
Last edited:
Top